PDA

View Full Version : Forum Behaviour



crossref
28-08-17, 19:08
I think it's about time the problem of ill-tempered, ill mannered, discourteous postings that plague the forum was properly addressed

I see two ways this can be done

1 - A call to action to the moderators.

The mods could sort this out, and I call on them to bring to the forum the same techniques that they use to manage a rugby game. I'd like to see
- a short 'PMB' - a statement setting out the conduct that must be observed (be polite, be respectful. That's probably enough, TBH)
- then sanction people not observing. I'd recommend the mods use ATP, and YC. These techniques are very effective on the pitch, and we all understand them. I reckon they'd work here.
- the mods are going to have to work out for themselves how to deal with misconduct by one of their own... I am sure they can do that.

2 - community feedback

If mods don't want to / can't take on this task, we may be able to manage it as a group.
My proposal is for everyone to actively use the 'dislike' button, to signal that we dislike the tone of a post (regardless of whether you agree with the argument being expressed). that might work.

We could do both

(and .... if anyone thinks any of my posts have been part of the problem -- please feel to go back to the specific post and click dislike. Or just do so going forward - I would notice)

illinois rugger
28-08-17, 20:08
i think you limeys have a saying. pot meet kettle

Paule23
28-08-17, 23:08
i think you limeys have a saying. pot meet kettle

Isn't this just the sort of thing Crossref is talking about? And the very 1st reply?

I think self policing is the way to go, we soon find what is generally acceptable and call out this that are not. If it turns out the level is in the wrong place for some of us we take our business elsewhere.

See above for a dislike btw

crossref
29-08-17, 01:08
i think you limeys have a saying. pot meet kettle

Hi Illinois
So you have been a member of the forum for eight years , and that's the first time you have ever replied to, liked or disliked any of my posts ..

Dickie E
29-08-17, 03:08
Hi Illinois
So you have been a member of the forum for eight years , and that's the first time you have ever replied to, liked or disliked any of my posts ..

what I find baffling is one regular contributor thanked Illinois for his post and another liked it. :shrug:

crossref
29-08-17, 08:08
I rather suspect that Illinois rugger is a sock puppet (nine posts in eight years, last posted nearly two years ago, and yet was online to read and respond to my post inside an hour).'
(and "limey" makes me smile, has any real American used that word since about 1955 ?)
Obviously I don't know who it is, but I have a theory. mods perhaps you can see the IP address of posters ? Does Illinois rigger use the same computer as any regular poster ? What's the policy on sock puppets ?

Blackberry
29-08-17, 09:08
i think you limeys have a saying. pot meet kettle

Great start.

damo
29-08-17, 09:08
Ignoring the sock/troll is a better strategy than investigating him.

FWIW, I follow this forum avidly and though I don't post that much anymore I think the level of discourse is generally OK. Others might disagree, and that's fine.

Pegleg
29-08-17, 10:08
Or simply ignore those you have a problem with. Take a look at yourelf and ask would you accept a post in that tone etc. If you can deal with it fair enough. Just because your are told your talking nonsense should not really be a problem if you are thick enough skinned to referee.

I'm guessing our American friend was referring to the OP. there is some merit in the comment. This is not a playground we are gown ups.

I can't recall anything that anyone with a pair should be prissy about.

Ian_Cook
29-08-17, 10:08
I rather suspect that Illinois rugger is a sock puppet (nine posts in eight years, last posted nearly two years ago, and yet was online to read and respond to my post inside an hour).'
(and "limey" makes me smile, has any real American used that word since about 1955 ?)
Obviously I don't know who it is, but I have a theory. mods perhaps you can see the IP address of posters ? Does Illinois rigger use the same computer as any regular poster ? What's the policy on sock puppets ?

Yes, I know who you think it is Crossref (yes, you are that transparent) but you are wrong, I would not bother wasting my time.

The reality is, he is probably a lurker. This forum has plenty of lurkers (over 60 members have logged in the last 24 hours... how many have posted). Just on the first page of the member list I found a user who joined in 2010, has two posts, and last logged in 15 hours ago. Another joined 2013, has 5 posts and last logged in 14 hours ago. Not everyone posts on forums they are members of.

Looking up the IP number is easy, you can even get an approximate Google Earth location for the provider (not so easy to find the actual location of the user though). Finding out what type of computer they are using is not possible in this version of vBulletin - I'm not sure that Robbie could even find that out, and it wouldn't prove much anyway. If I bother to look it up, I certainly will not be publishing it outside of the staff forum. That would be a breach privacy and therefore against forum rules.

Hopefully, illinois rigger will post again and elaborate.

crossref
29-08-17, 10:08
Ignoring the sock/troll is a better strategy than investigating him.
.

but on the other hand investigating is fun !

illinois rugger joined in 2009, in the middle of a spat between Ian Cook and Brian Moore
needless to say, iilinois rugger was on Ian's side.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79459&highlight=#post79459
and Ian liked what Illinois had to say
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79465&viewfull=1#post79465
and Illinois came to Ian's support later in the year on the same topic
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7821-POLL-BCM-s-views-on-crooked-feeds&p=98398&highlight=#post98398

So I'll ask the question : Ian -- are you and illinois by any chance the same person ?

Swiss Ref
29-08-17, 10:08
Actually I don't think its about being prissy or possessing cojones.
Its just encouraging debate to solve problems, questions and being literally a resource forum where new refs and old feel comfortable to ask questions


Or simply ignore those you have a problem with. Take a look at yourelf and ask would you accept a post in that tone etc. If you can deal with it fair enough. Just because your are told your talking nonsense should not really be a problem if you are thick enough skinned to referee.

I'm guessing our American friend was referring to the OP. there is some merit in the comment. This is not a playground we are gown ups.

I can't recall anything that anyone with a pair should be prissy about.

damo
29-08-17, 10:08
but on the other hand investigating is fun !

illinois rugger joined in 2009, in the middle of a spat between Ian Cook and Brian Moore
needless to say, iilinois rugger was on Ian's side.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79459&highlight=#post79459
and Ian liked what Illinois had to say
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79465&viewfull=1#post79465
and Illinois came to Ian's support later in the year on the same topic
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7821-POLL-BCM-s-views-on-crooked-feeds&p=98398&highlight=#post98398

So I'll ask the question : Ian -- are you and illinois by any chance the same person ?
Is that all you've got? A couple of posts in which Ian and this Illinois character happen to disagree with Moore about how important it is to put the ball into the scrum correctly?

TBH, Moore is very easy to disagree with.

Ian_Cook
29-08-17, 11:08
but on the other hand investigating is fun !

illinois rugger joined in 2009, in the middle of a spat between Ian Cook and Brian Moore
needless to say, iilinois rugger was on Ian's side.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79459&highlight=#post79459
and Ian liked what Illinois had to say
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79465&viewfull=1#post79465
and Illinois came to Ian's support later in the year on the same topic
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7821-POLL-BCM-s-views-on-crooked-feeds&p=98398&highlight=#post98398

So I'll ask the question : Ian -- are you and illinois by any chance the same person ?

No we're not. I have no need to hide behind a persona to tell you exactly what I think of you

I have posted in the Staff forum on this issue. Someone else can deal with it now.

Ian_Cook
29-08-17, 11:08
Actually I don't think its about being prissy or possessing cojones.
Its just encouraging debate to solve problems, questions and being literally a resource forum where new refs and old feel comfortable to ask questions

More importantly there are certain forum members who take great delight in nitpicking when an experienced forum member and referee answers a question from a new referee, and it turns into shit fight over minutia. I find this particularly annoying. While the more experienced member has given good advice that might be lacking detail, the fact is that detail is NOT what is important when dealing with a new referee... BASICS are what are important, the details can be dealt with later.

I can link you to a recent example of this if you like (but rather do it via PM as I don't want the shit fight starting again).

Ian_Cook
29-08-17, 11:08
Is that all you've got? A couple of posts in which Ian and this Illinois character happen to disagree with Moore about how important it is to put the ball into the scrum correctly?

TBH, Moore is very easy to disagree with.

About half the rugby communty disagrees with BCM, so that puts illinois rugger and I same 50% of rugby fans on the planet!

Wow, so conclusive! https://www.dropbox.com/s/5puphhlibn2zl7b/icon_rolleyes.gif?dl=1

Phil E
29-08-17, 12:08
I think it's about time the problem of ill-tempered, ill mannered, discourteous postings that plague the forum was properly addressed




More importantly there are certain forum members who take great delight in nitpicking when an experienced forum member and referee answers a question from a new referee, and it turns into shit fight over minutia. I find this particularly annoying. While the more experienced member has given good advice that might be lacking detail, the fact is that detail is NOT what is important when dealing with a new referee... BASICS are what are important, the details can be dealt with later.


For me the latter is far more detrimental to this forum than the former (which happens less often).
It has led to more experienced referees leaving, or only posting very occasionally; thus the forum and its members lose out on their advice.

Christy
29-08-17, 15:08
hi all
interesting conversation .
the way i have handled same when a member decided to take what i felt was a deliberate personnel attack about my persona .
in what real was just a pointless provocative post which had no materiality to question i had posted
was to no longer read that posters posts .

even when same have replied to further posts i have put up .
as soon as i see offenders name , i simply scroll past same & totally ignore their post .

i have been ignoring poster for i would say over a year .

i think this is a great forum
and have learnt a lot from same , general banter i feel is healthy .
look forward to staying active

Wedgie
29-08-17, 15:08
One person's lurker is another's observer....

Accylad
29-08-17, 18:08
For me the latter is far more detrimental to this forum than the former (which happens less often).
It has led to more experienced referees leaving, or only posting very occasionally; thus the forum and its members lose out on their advice.

I used to use the site quite often and while I have always been a rare poster I have largely given up on it as both a refereeing resource and an enjoyable place to read posts (or lurk if you prefer)... It is too rare to find a question posed and answered reasonably simply. Now I know TLOtG are not always straightforward but for an inexperienced referee some of the threads must be even more confusing than I find them!

I would not presume to think I know it all, I make my share of on field gaffs, and I take a look occasionally as I have now to see if there is anything going on of interest and to see if I can learn anything.

too often I find that the posts drift off into great detail that become turgid and I loose interest as a "hard core" have fun debating. My lack of intellectual rigour maybe....

Having said that I do hope it continues because at its best it can be very good if you are able pick the wheat you need from what you find is chaff.

Guyseep
29-08-17, 20:08
I used to use the site quite often and while I have always been a rare poster I have largely given up on it as both a refereeing resource and an enjoyable place to read posts (or lurk if you prefer)... It is too rare to find a question posed and answered reasonably simply. Now I know TLOtG are not always straightforward but for an inexperienced referee some of the threads must be even more confusing than I find them!

I would not presume to think I know it all, I make my share of on field gaffs, and I take a look occasionally as I have now to see if there is anything going on of interest and to see if I can learn anything.

too often I find that the posts drift off into great detail that become turgid and I loose interest as a "hard core" have fun debating. My lack of intellectual rigour maybe....

Having said that I do hope it continues because at its best it can be very good if you are able pick the wheat you need from what you find is chaff.

I agree with most of this and I think part of it is also that the forums seem so unorganized. There are simply too many categories and subforums. They need to be streamlined.

SimonSmith
30-08-17, 17:08
but on the other hand investigating is fun !

illinois rugger joined in 2009, in the middle of a spat between Ian Cook and Brian Moore
needless to say, iilinois rugger was on Ian's side.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79459&highlight=#post79459
and Ian liked what Illinois had to say
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7738-BCM-s-views-no-crooked-feeds&p=79465&viewfull=1#post79465
and Illinois came to Ian's support later in the year on the same topic
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7821-POLL-BCM-s-views-on-crooked-feeds&p=98398&highlight=#post98398

So I'll ask the question : Ian -- are you and illinois by any chance the same person ?

Let me get this straight: the OP is about respect on the forum, and one of your leading pitches is to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet, based on THAT evidence?

Physician, heal thyself

crossref
30-08-17, 18:08
I will accept Ian's assertion that he is not Illinois Rugger.

Simon Thomas
30-08-17, 18:08
For me the latter is far more detrimental to this forum than the former (which happens less often).
It has led to more experienced referees leaving, or only posting very occasionally; thus the forum and its members lose out on their advice.

Indeed Phil, I have only recently started re-posting after a significant break, directly caused by "the latter" reason and having better things to do with my time. I am here to discuss, learn from and help colleagues of whatever level, not listen to minutae debates irrelevant to day-to-day community reffing.

Dickie E
31-08-17, 10:08
For me the latter is far more detrimental to this forum than the former (which happens less often).
It has led to more experienced referees leaving, or only posting very occasionally; thus the forum and its members lose out on their advice.

Crossref has perceived a problem and is doing something to fix it. Good on that man. I doubt he'll be successfull but he's giving it a red hot go.

You have perceived a different problem - what are you going to do to fix that?

This isn't an either/or situation. We can fix 2 problems at the same time.

Phil E
31-08-17, 12:08
Crossref has perceived a problem and is doing something to fix it. Good on that man. I doubt he'll be successfull but he's giving it a red hot go.

You have perceived a different problem - what are you going to do to fix that?

This isn't an either/or situation. We can fix 2 problems at the same time.


Tell you what I wont do....shoot the messenger!

didds
31-08-17, 12:08
I was goingh to suggest snipers Phil!

didds

Paule23
31-08-17, 13:08
I'm just hoping out of all this I can raise my proportion of posts/likes/thanks from it's current abysmal level. Although it could go the wrong way with a huge increase in not likes......

Dickie E
31-08-17, 15:08
Tell you what I wont do....shoot the messenger!

I don't know what that means

crossref
31-08-17, 17:08
On another tack, but still in the general theme of how the forum could become better --
- here's two excellent nuggets of information posted today in response to caniscot's question


The way it was explained to us by our resident Premiership Referee is that its "a tackle with offside lines, don't shout ruck".


The way it was explained to us (panel ref, panel AR) was that the the first player to arrive only creates a ruck in so far as it produces an offside line. You need an opponent in contact for the full ruck law to apply.

That's just the sort of well-sourced guideline / interpretation that this forum is useful for.
- I'd like to see more of that sort of thing cascaded
- and ideally cascaded proactively --- Phil, OB perhaps this was something you found out today, but it felt like it handn't occured to you to share it until caniscot happened to ask the right question

Shelflife
01-09-17, 10:09
I dont post as much as I used to or would like to.

There is one poster in particular that to me is passive aggressive,and snide in many of his comments, it just makes debating your pov a chore and takes the fun out of it.

I have received a lot of very good advice when starting out on here but over the last year or so some posters have taken the fun out of it.

No question should be considered stupid and we need to rein in the one or two bullies that are turning people away.

when it works well this is an excellent site and a font of knowledge, wit and wisdom.

didds
01-09-17, 11:09
All I'll add to this is

- this site is brilliant. The coaching firums I used to frequent have over time just dwindled and died, but this place goes on an on afresh every day

- On the whole I tend to filter out the tit-for-tat bickering, but I appreciate other's mileage varies on this.

- I have on very few occasions (possibly just occasion?!) contacted admins off-line about stuff I have seen that I thought was really out of order, or boring. I've never got a response from these so can only assume that admins don;t agree with me but are not prepared to be communicative about it. The former is fine, but the latter poor - IMO I hasten to add.

didds

Paule23
01-09-17, 12:09
- I have on very few occasions (possibly just occasion?!) contacted admins off-line about stuff I have seen that I thought was really out of order, or boring. I've never got a response from these so can only assume that admins don;t agree with me but are not prepared to be communicative about it. The former is fine, but the latter poor - IMO I hasten to add.

didds

Blimey, i didn't realise being boring was an issue for admins as well. Half the posts on here would need deleting.

didds
01-09-17, 12:09
Not boring as in "zzzzz"... I was being kind ;-)

didds

Guyseep
02-09-17, 06:09
Not boring as in "zzzzz"... I was being kind ;-)

didds

you know what really bothers me?! when didds types "didds" at the end of all his comments. We know it was written by didds, it says didds immediately to the left of what didds wrote.

(and for anyone who might be wondering I'm kidding)

Pegleg
02-09-17, 11:09
you know what really bothers me?! when didds types "didds" at the end of all his comments. We know it was written by didds, it says didds immediately to the left of what didds wrote.

(and for anyone who might be wondering I'm kidding)


I've never understood it. but I am not botherted by it I'd rather judge posts by their content and not what they're dressed up in.

The only posters that really annoy me are the ones who effectively say "I don't care, I'm going to do X". Ntionalistic bias is regrettable though understandable.

I don't like double standards where, it seems, mods are allowed more latitude than ordinary posters.

But being told your stupid or whatever? come on guys we get that for a couple of hours every Saturday. You can't be too delicate if you are going to be a referee.

I have three posters on ignore. Why? Not because they a "rude" (at that means whatever the individual wants it to mean!) but because their arguments contain fewer points than Arsenal and I find a waste of time reading.

Some like Ian C, Crossref (just don't see his point re clothing at all - but he is entitled to believe it), Didds and Phil E I disagree strongly with at times but they also generally make their arguments well and their views challenge mine which can only be good.

Dickie E
02-09-17, 12:09
I've never understood it. but I am not botherted by it I'd rather judge posts by their content and not what they're dressed up in.

The only posters that really annoy me are the ones who effectively say "I don't care, I'm going to do X". Ntionalistic bias is regrettable though understandable.

I don't like double standards where, it seems, mods are allowed more latitude than ordinary posters.

But being told your stupid or whatever? come on guys we get that for a couple of hours every Saturday. You can't be too delicate if you are going to be a referee.

I have three posters on ignore. Why? Not because they a "rude" (at that means whatever the individual wants it to mean!) but because their arguments contain fewer points than Arsenal and I find a waste of time reading.

Some like Ian C, Crossref (just don't see his point re clothing at all - but he is entitled to believe it), Didds and Phil E I disagree strongly with at times but they also generally make their arguments well and their views challenge mine which can only be good.

Am I one of the 3? If you answer this, I guess I'm not. If you don't, then I guess I am. Unless, you just don't answer it. I'm getting a headache

L'irlandais
02-09-17, 13:09
I hope I'm one of the three. Dickie, he could view your post, answer it and still let you on his ignore list.
I think ignore lists are a good thing, since they help cut down on the very behaviour the OP speaks of.

In terms of the forums going forward, both problems need to be addressed. Thanks to crossref for raising the topic. Down to each of us to change his own behaviour and ignore(/not focus on) the foibles of other members. YMMV

didds
02-09-17, 16:09
Some like Ian C, Crossref (just don't see his point re clothing at all - but he is entitled to believe it), Didds and Phil E I disagree strongly with at times but they also generally make their arguments well and their views challenge mine which can only be good.

I've noticed I've "liked" a lot of your posts of late Pegleg :-) I am obviously teaching you well ;-)

didds

crossref
02-09-17, 17:09
- I have on very few occasions (possibly just occasion?!) contacted admins off-line about stuff I have seen that I thought was really out of order, or boring. I've never got a response from these so can only assume that admins don;t agree with me but are not prepared to be communicative about it. The former is fine, but the latter poor - IMO I hasten to add.


This thread is an example of the same thing .. no response at all from the mods (yes, some individuals have posted but I think as individuals and not as group mod response, please correct me if I am wrong )

So I am curious .. do the mod team think that the standard of behaviour is just peachy and there is nothing to be done ? Or do they think standards do need to be improved and they are putting f some actions into place ?
Ditto for the problem that Phil E raises

Pegleg
02-09-17, 20:09
Am I one of the 3? If you answer this, I guess I'm not. If you don't, then I guess I am. Unless, you just don't answer it. I'm getting a headache

Nope not on the list. I doubt those who are will read this thread.

Pegleg
02-09-17, 20:09
I hope I'm one of the three. Dickie, he could view your post, answer it and still let you on his ignore list.
I think ignore lists are a good thing, since they help cut down on the very behaviour the OP speaks of.


Again no. Odd post, wanting to be on someone's ignore list. Still it take all sorts.

Pegleg
02-09-17, 20:09
I've noticed I've "liked" a lot of your posts of late Pegleg :-) I am obviously teaching you well ;-)

didds

I learn a lot from a number of posters. One thing I find useful in your posts is the alternative view of the coach. Refs can tend to exist in a bubble without considering properly what coaches and players etc want / expect from us. We don't have to agree at the end but we do need to hear and consider.

Paule23
02-09-17, 21:09
I learn a lot from a number of posters. One thing I find useful in your posts is the alternative view of the coach. Refs can tend to exist in a bubble without considering properly what coaches and players etc want / expect from us. We don't have to agree at the end but we do need to hear and consider.

Get a room you two :buttkick:

didds
02-09-17, 22:09
I learn a lot from a number of posters. One thing I find useful in your posts is the alternative view of the coach. Refs can tend to exist in a bubble without considering properly what coaches and players etc want / expect from us.

Cheers - that is one reason why I post/read here. Another is from a coaches perspective its great to read/hear what REFS think. Some two way communication can only make both our jobs more efficient.


didds

- - - Updated - - -


Get a room you two :buttkick:

Jealousy is a terrible thing!

didds

Dickie E
03-09-17, 00:09
So I am curious .. do the mod team think that the standard of behaviour is just peachy and there is nothing to be done ? Or do they think standards do need to be improved and they are putting f some actions into place ?
Ditto for the problem that Phil E raises

when issues come up the mods have a space where they discuss/debate the pros & cons. This type of issue usually percolates to a freedom of expression debate with (suprise, surprise) diiferent mods having a variety of views.

I'd be disappointed if you don't receive a reply to a PM.

didds
03-09-17, 12:09
I'd be disappointed if you don't receive a reply to a PM.

see above...

my message that I remember was not a "message" via the inbox etc facility, it was a "report this post ". Ive just "reported" Dicke's post above as a test - maybe such reports aren;t getting through. I do not have a problem with Dickie's post for the record - Ive only "reported" it as a test! :)

didds

Simon Thomas
03-09-17, 13:09
Reported Post noted and read in my role as a moderator.
Even though I have not posting regularly on here for some time, I have carefully read all such Moderator based reports, discussed with fellow Mods or replied to posters as necessary.

In general I try to do what Robbie asked initially - to moderate the site. That is not being a thought or behavior policeman day-to-day, but deal with excesses.

My view is that the standard of posts and objective debate has gone down in the last 5 years, with too many being focused on obscure law interpretations or debates, or in some cases personal fads.

Hence I have not been very active on here, with time conflicting RFU Group level duties and Society work.

Simon Thomas
03-09-17, 14:09
Just to be clear.

Reported threads are sent to Mods via email, and we have a private Mods Staff Forum on here too to open discuss the few serious problems that do arise occasionally.

Anyone who sends me a Private Message usually gets a same day reply - most are personal rugby related requests or questions. I can only recall onePM about a Forum member's behavior in the last few years.

crossref
03-09-17, 14:09
.

My view is that the standard of posts and objective debate has gone down in the last 5 years, with too many being focused on obscure law interpretations or debates, or in some cases personal fads.

.

Is that view shared by the other mods, and if so any consideration of actions the Mods could take to change things ?

SimonSmith
03-09-17, 18:09
I'm not going to speak on behalf of the mods, but my view:

As any forum will, it has evolved (or devolved) over time, according to the membership and how they use.

Way back in the mists of time, when SimonT and I were refereeing together in Hampshire, the original intent was that this would be some kind of resource for referees looking for advice and/or help - I'm having management issues, what should I do differently? I'm struggling with the breakdown, can you help me? New referee, help! - thoe kinds of things.

It's beyond debate that we've gone away from that. That's not good or bad, it just ...is. I don't think it's for the Mods to enforce a "hey, that's not why we're here" standard on the community. And this subject comes up every once in a while.

We seem to spend a lot of time looking at Elite level stuff and picking it apart. I don't see how that actually helps anybody improve their refereeing. It's a game apart with different expectations. It's not often that someone steers us to "here's how this would play out at my level - is this the right way to think about it?"

If it's the wish of the community that we continue to discuss issues in the way that we are, then that's OK - community wish. I see our role as Mods to generally make sure that behavior doesn't stray too far over the line. It doesn't happen too oftern.

winchesterref
03-09-17, 23:09
I think it's quite good to use the videos from elite rugby to look at how incidents are handled, as there is still a lot of good to be picked up from what they do, providing it isn't endless criticism and nit-picking.

I would also certainly like to see a lot more "problem solving" and advice type threads but I guess people don't like to post them? I certainly usually try to work it out myself, but I guess when I go back to refereeing I could start doing that some more.

Ian_Cook
04-09-17, 01:09
Is that view shared by the other mods?

Its shared by me.

I see far too much "I don't like how this is interpreted so I'm going to do it my way" attitude here. This is not what I expect from a person out in the middle with the whistle and frankly, its a rogue/rebellious attitude that has no place in refereeing. Next week's referee will not thank anyone for taking that approach this week.

I also have a beef with people who are picky-choosey about advice from elite referees. This is something that annoys me about you in particular Crossref (but you are not the only one by any means)

Back a few months ago when we were having the debate about Law 14 and the ball being played by a player off his feet, I posted some information in the form of an emailed reply from Rod Hill, the NZRU Referee High Performance manager. You werent interested in taking this information on board and continued to argue that you would go with your own interpretation.

Fast forward to last week, when a new poster asked a question about creation of a "mono" ruck under the new Law, a couple of experienced regulars posted information from a Panel Ref, a Panel AR and their Society's "resident Premiership Referee". You accepted this without question, and said you regarded their comments as "well sourced and eminently practical".

Now, it is not my intention to embarrass you by pointing this out, nor is it my intention to re-debate these points, but can you see how I have a problem with this?

Dickie E
04-09-17, 02:09
Is that view shared by the other mods, and if so any consideration of actions the Mods could take to change things ?

Not by me. I don't have an issue with minutiae being raised & debated - its all part of the fun and helps me deepen my understanding of the laws, practices & history of the Game. I even appreciate OB..'s arcane references to times past.

And as per my cocktail party analogy, if I don't find the discussion interesting, I move on elsewhere.

It's the stuff as per post #1 that I don't like.

crossref
04-09-17, 08:09
Its shared by me.

I also have a beef with people who are picky-choosey about advice from elite referees. This is something that annoys me about you in particular Crossref (but you are not the only one by any means)

Back a few months ago when we were having the debate about Law 14 and the ball being played by a player off his feet, I posted some information in the form of an emailed reply from Rod Hill, the NZRU Referee High Performance manager. You werent interested in taking this information on board and continued to argue that you would go with your own interpretation.

Fast forward to last week, when a new poster asked a question about creation of a "mono" ruck under the new Law, a couple of experienced regulars posted information from a Panel Ref, a Panel AR and their Society's "resident Premiership Referee". You accepted this without question, and said you regarded their comments as "well sourced and eminently practical".

Now, it is not my intention to embarrass you by pointing this out, nor is it my intention to re-debate these points, but can you see how I have a problem with this?

- your problem with me is that I am picky-choosy about advice from elite referees, and I didn't think that Rod Kafer's email definitively settled a long-running debate.
- and my problem with you is that you are consistently aggressive and quite unnecessarily rude to multiple posters.

Ian_Cook
04-09-17, 08:09
- your problem with me is that I am picky-choosy about advice from elite referees, and I didn't think that Rod Kafer's email definitively settled a long-running debate.
- and my problem with you is that you are consistently aggressive and quite unnecessarily rude to multiple posters.


Very good. Rod Kafer is a former Wallaby rugby player. I've never had an email from him.

What Rod Hill said, was
"Simple answer is that there has been no change to Law 14 and a player is out of the game if they are on the ground."

Geez! How much more definitive would you like him to be?


PS: You didn't answer the question

crossref
04-09-17, 09:09
we don't a have an agreed moderator view on my original post - and I am guessing that perhaps this is because the mods disagree amongst themselves.

But a few individual mods did say some interesting things about how moderation works here, and what they perceive to be the general role of a mod


when issues come up the mods have a space where they discuss/debate the pros & cons. This type of issue usually percolates to a freedom of expression debate with (suprise, surprise) diiferent mods having a variety of views.



.
In general I try to do what Robbie asked initially - to moderate the site. That is not being a thought or behavior policeman day-to-day, but deal with excesses.
.


I don't think it's for the Mods to enforce a "hey, that's not why we're here" standard on the community. And this subject comes up every once in a while.
[...] I see our role as Mods to generally make sure that behavior doesn't stray too far over the line. It doesn't happen too oftern.


Returning to the analogy I drew earlier I think good moderation is like good rugby refereeing --- and good rugby refereeing isn't about sitting back and letting players get on with it, only intervening when there is an egregious excess.

That sort of reactive approach wouldn't normally lead to the best game of rugby, I don't think it's how you all go about reffing, and I don't think it's how players even want to be reffed

Good rugby refs are more proactive -- they think about the standards they want to set, communicate the standards clearly, and enforce them appropriately. If they are very good they can accomplish an enormous amount with Ask and Tell, but they musn't be afraid to Penalise. That way a good game of rugby can happen


At one of our society meetings J P Doyle said something along the lines the objective of the referee is try and give the 30 players in front of you the best game of rugby they can have.

I thought that was good. I think the objectives of you mods should be to give posters the best possible rugby referees forum they could have.

I'm not saying it's entirely easy or straightforward, but I am saying that you could do more

[TBH I suspect that it doesn't help you that that there are large number of you and that (so far as I can tell) no one is in charge]

Pegleg
04-09-17, 09:09
Crossreff, So you think that Ian C oversteps the mark at times. YES he does. As do many posters from time to time. It's no big deal. We are rugby people and, if we want an rugby match analogy, at times there a bit of "handbags". What happens in a game? A quick "sort it out or I will" and the games gets back to normal and the player move on and get on with it rather than getting all prissy because they were sledged. With a few notable exceptions , that is what generaly that is what happens here. I worry how some of the less robust of us cope with a crowd and players on a Saturday if this forum is too rough for them.

Do Mods get away with what the ordinary members do not? It does seems so at times. But we don't know as our "disciplinary hearings" are not public nor are the results. So any evidence is at best "unclear".

Didds refers to reported posts where no feedback is given. Giving feedback would, perhaps, help. The Mods could let the reporter know that their comments have been "upheld" or "dismissed". At least Didds would know what was considered ok or not. Maybe thought could be given by admin / mods to a standardised acknowledgement and feedback to complainants.

SimonSmith
04-09-17, 14:09
Good rugby refs are more proactive -- they think about the standards they want to set, communicate the standards clearly, and enforce them appropriately. If they are very good they can accomplish an enormous amount with Ask and Tell, but they musn't be afraid to Penalise. That way a good game of rugby can happen

I thought that was good. I think the objectives of you mods should be to give posters the best possible rugby referees forum they could have.

I'm not saying it's entirely easy or straightforward, but I am saying that you could do more

[TBH I suspect that it doesn't help you that that there are large number of you and that (so far as I can tell) no one is in charge]

Well, no. I don't think your example works.
Referees are working within a framework that is laid out by Laws. We aren't, and I strongly resist the idea that Mods proactively define the standards of the community. It isn't "ours" to do so.

There are expected behavioral standards - we all have different tolerance levels and that why we discuss the edge cases that need determination. Here's a good example of why we shouldn't be doing it:
1. My observation here is that some folks are perfectly fine with blunt speech; Pegleg's observation about how he interacts with IanCook is a great example.
2. Others are less so. Where group 1 and group 2 meet things can derail.
3. Some folks can personalize things in a way that I personally find unnecessary. There is a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless, between "that's a dumb idea" and "you're dumb". The first, to my mind, is just about OK; it's the idea that's being attacked. As I tell people at work - smart people can make dumb statements, it doesn't make them dumb. "You're dumb" is ad hominem and probably just over the other side of the line. People, in my general life experience, conflate the two statement.

Moderation should be light touch, and only when absolutely necessary.

Dickie E
04-09-17, 15:09
There is a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless, between "that's a dumb idea" and "you're dumb".

or maybe the poster who is tempted to say either of those things can dig a little deeper into their vocabulary bag and save everyone some grief

Ian_Cook
04-09-17, 22:09
There is a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless, between "that's a dumb idea" and "you're dumb". The first, to my mind, is just about OK; it's the idea that's being attacked. As I tell people at work - smart people can make dumb statements, it doesn't make them dumb. "You're dumb" is ad hominem and probably just over the other side of the line. People, in my general life experience, conflate the two statement.

I am a regular poster and contributor on a number of critical thinking and skeptical debate forums and blogs (my interests don't just cover rugby; they include astrophysics and other sciences, technology, the wrongfully convicted, politics and my favourite, the debunking of stupid conspiracy theories such as the belief that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that the Holocaust never happened.

On every single one of them, you pretty quickly learn about the hundreds of logical fallacies such as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, Strawman Arguments and Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies. This understanding is somewhat lacking among the members here.

In the case of those two mentioned by Simon above, if you post the first, its perfectly acceptable because you are "attacking the argument"; a legitimate part of debate. However, other members will expect you to justify why you think its a dumb idea. The second is an Ad Hominem, you are "attacking the person", not the argument. Its not acceptable even with an explanation.

Some might see little difference between them. Frankly, if they cannot understand the difference between being told they are stupid, and being told that their idea is stupid, then that is something they are going to have to learn.

Ill finish by saying this. I am usually direct and blunt in what I post, no tiptoeing around. Its WYSIWYG, others will always know exactly what my position or view is and where they stand with me. I like it that way because it leaves less room for speculation and misunderstanding. Now, anyone who doesn't like my opinion, my views, my directness or what I post doesn't have to read me. I'll give them the same advice I give to people who complain about certain programmes on the television... it comes equipped with a mute button, a channel change button and an off button... you choose which one you want to use. If you just don't read me, this will be of mutual benefit; you won't have to take umbrage at what I post, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you..... simples!

ETA: Just a thought. I would object if a poster told another poster that they had asked a "stupid question", even though its not a direct attack on the person, I believe there is no such thing as a stupid question... questions are the first steps on the path to knowledge and understanding.

Not Kurt Weaver
04-09-17, 23:09
Here is some critical thought

What is the differences between an Astrophysicist and God?

- - - Updated - - -

God knows he/she is not an astrophysicist.

Not Kurt Weaver
04-09-17, 23:09
If you are an atheist

What is the difference between an Astrophysicist and a Moron

- - - Updated - - -

The Moron knows he is not God.

Dickie E
04-09-17, 23:09
Now, anyone who doesn't like my opinion, my views, my directness or what I post doesn't have to read me.

and go too far and no-one will have to read you cos you'll get moderated

Ian_Cook
05-09-17, 00:09
and go too far and no-one will have to read you cos you'll get moderated

No-one here gets moderated for their opinions.

Dickie E
05-09-17, 01:09
If a poster says "I think red is a nicer colour than blue" then no problem.

If a poster says "I know red is a nicer colour than blue and anyone who disagrees with me has got a burr up their arse" then they may/should be moderated.

Ian_Cook
05-09-17, 05:09
If a poster says "I think red is a nicer colour than blue" then no problem.

If a poster says "I know red is a nicer colour than blue and anyone who disagrees with me has got a burr up their arse" then they may/should be moderated.

That is still not an Ad Hominem attack on a poster

BTW, you are completely misrepresenting both the context and the characterisation of how that phrase was used.

Pegleg
05-09-17, 08:09
ETA: Just a thought. I would object if a poster told another poster that they had asked a "stupid question", even though its not a direct attack on the person, I believe there is no such thing as a stupid question... questions are the first steps on the path to knowledge and understanding.

However, when the same question keeps coming up regularly from the same poster with, sometimes, very slight variation seemingly because the poster wants to make a point that the forum has debated fully and concluded yet a poster drags it back up a week or so later. Starts to make you feel it is a stupid question or simple trouble making (as the poster doers know the answer.) I'm not including different posters asking the sme question as they may not have seen / remembered the original debate) OR where a call made in a TV game appears to contradict the commonly held "truth".

Ian_Cook
05-09-17, 09:09
However, when the same question keeps coming up regularly from the same poster with, sometimes, very slight variation seemingly because the poster wants to make a point that the forum has debated fully and concluded yet a poster drags it back up a week or so later. Starts to make you feel it is a stupid question or simple trouble making (as the poster doers know the answer.) I'm not including different posters asking the sme question as they may not have seen / remembered the original debate) OR where a call made in a TV game appears to contradict the commonly held "truth".

Agree.

I was thinking more of the case of a relatively new poster asking something that for some of us, might seem very basic.

crossref
05-09-17, 09:09
Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try

didds
05-09-17, 09:09
I'm not sure people do notice likes or dislikes - or maybe its just me?

Or of course maybe I get neither!

didds

crossref
05-09-17, 10:09
Ah, in case anyone doesn't know if you click My Profile , at the top right, and then choose the Posts Thanks/Like button, you can see a tidy list of them all (those you have made as well as those received)

Ian_Cook
05-09-17, 10:09
Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try

"dislikes" have no impact on the poster. They don't affect the poster's "likes" count or their "thanks" count.

I use "likes" and "dislikes" to indicate agreement or disagreement with what has been posted, and "thanks" where a post has supported my viewpoint or helped me to understand something.

However, other than that, I'd say fill your boots. Use "dislikes" however you like (no pun intended) if it makes you feel better.

Pegleg
05-09-17, 10:09
Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try


I'd say that if a poster has a problem with another poster, after due reflection, they report the poster. IF the mods agree there is a problem they will act. IF they do not agree they will not take action. If they act the complainer can feel vindicated and it is possible the "guilty" party may "reconsider their ways". However, if the mods disagree, perhaps the complainer needs to re-think their tolerance levels. Of course, it would help if the mods explained to the complainer why their complaint was not being upheld.

Phil E
05-09-17, 11:09
Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try


I'd say that if a poster has a problem with another poster, after due reflection, they report the poster. IF the mods agree there is a problem they will act. IF they do not agree they will not take action. If they act the complainer can feel vindicated and it is possible the "guilty" party may "reconsider their ways". However, if the mods disagree, perhaps the complainer needs to re-think their tolerance levels. Of course, it would help if the mods explained to the complainer why their complaint was not being upheld.

Moderators get reported posts from time to time, they are not very frequent.
I always look at them, but many times the report is vague as in "I don't like this post" or "I don't think this is fair". Mostly it is subjective.
It is very rare to get a reported post that we have to remove, for many reasons that have been mentioned in this thread.
If I remove a post I let everyone concerned know why.
I don't reply to the reports mentioned in line 2 because it just ends up in a tit for tat discussion that goes no where, and to be honest I have better things to do. If it crosses the line it will be dealt with, but we all have different ideas on where the line is.

Simon Thomas
05-09-17, 11:09
just to echo Phil's post. I read every Mod email reporting a post (very infrequent event), and if necessary take appropriate action or discuss with other Mods.

Pegleg
05-09-17, 18:09
I unswerstand that you don't wish to get in to a discussion. However, could there not be a simplr reply to the person reporting. along the lines of:

Thank you for your post report we have / not upheld your complaint and taken apprpriate action. The matter is now closed." Just so people know that have been listend to?